How much do you think I should get paid?

pow wow · 15-05-2011 08:42PM

Re. the pay scales, the fact that anyone can earn over 35k for scanning stuff all day regardless of how many years scanning experience they have is utterly ridiculous. I know not all COs scan stuff before anyone starts, but plenty do. Or assign stuff out of an electronic work queue all day. Or enter data from forms all day every day, print the odd letter, make the odd call about what's on the form. CO is the entry level grade and should be treated as such.

johnnyskeleton · 15-05-2011 08:53PM

splendid101 wrote: »

I'm a low grade civil servant - Clerical Officer.

How much do you think I should get paid?

Listening to the radio and looking at threads here an elsewhere, many people seem to have strong opinions on how much civil servants and public service employees should be paid. So I'm looking for opinions on what my net, take home pay should be.

Feel free to tell me what you get as well.

I work 34 hours and 45 minutes a week (on average [as I'm on flexi time]).

Thanks in advance,

Alan

What is the lowest wage that we could pay to get someone to do the job? Would someone out there do it for minimum wage? If so, we should pay minimum wage unless you bring something more to the table than what the person working for minimum wage would bring.

That might sound harsh but just as a lack of suitable workers drove wages up during the bubble, so too does an abundance of suitable workers drive down wages during the bust.

Nijmegen · 15-05-2011 09:00PM

The PS insistence on such linear grades doesn't help. If for my company I hire someone to scan documents all day, I pay them less than someone I hire as an admin to organise logistical schedules, say.

I think down the lower end the PS is closer to what the private sector would pay anyway, and the payscale here isn't outrageous - Ok, so I'd never, ever, bloody ever pay someone €35k to do the kind of work OP describes, and at €22k he's still on the high side of what I'd pay for that kind of work, he's not like others I know of higher up the PS who really are out of line with what they ought to be getting.

Small department managers getting €75k for work the private sector - including my own company - pays €50k, for example. Or people getting into positions - notably in quangos - where they have a paper promotion, but do the same work as people on lower pay grades, nothing to do with in-law status to the directors at the time the quango was set up.

I wonder if we did a proper forensic audit of all positions in the PS, from a pay and individual role level, how much would we find out of whack? From people earning €22k for a job the private sector would pay €20k (small fry says you, but it adds up) to people doing roles quite similar for double the money of the person they sit beside, thanks to rigid rules on how many of this grade and that you need in a particular unit, regardless of reality.

murphaph · 15-05-2011 09:03PM

dissed doc wrote: »

In my opinion, the best functioning small and geographically isolated economies like Denmark or Norway get by with high taxes (not as high as my net tax was in Ireland when I left), but also far more social cohesion; this is virtually impossible without the language to act as social glue, and keep communities developing as a consensus instead of 1870s era US individualism that dominates Ireland.

Norway has oil and is actually one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Denmark is going down the pan rapidly as more and more Danes move to (for example) Berlin to start companies, sick to the back teeth of massive taxes being imposed on them in Denmark. Denmark's educated and ambitious entrepreneurs who would be a nett plus to the economy are leaving and being replaced by poorly educated immigrants from third world countries who are a nett drain on the same economy. Denmark will face severe problems in a few years if it doesn't start rewarding entrepreneurship and hard work and stop rewarding laziness pretty fast.

WalterMitty · 15-05-2011 09:11PM

UK public servants have actually taken close to a 30% gross cut relative to Europea and USA in past 3 years yet you dont hear them knashing and wailing much. IT is just that the pay cut came in terms of the currency devaluation of sterling, making travel abraod for them and purchase of goods and service from abroad have soared in cost . If we still had a punt then public servants would have already taken probably close to 50% pay cut relative to rest world and still be facing high inflation.

WalterMitty · 15-05-2011 09:20PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What is the lowest wage that we could pay to get someone to do the job? Would someone out there do it for minimum wage? If so, we should pay minimum wage unless you bring something more to the table than what the person working for minimum wage would bring.

That might sound harsh but just as a lack of suitable workers drove wages up during the bubble, so too does an abundance of suitable workers drive down wages during the bust.

Exactly. Pay the maximum needed to get suitably qualifed people. In todays market theres plenty of people capable and willing to do clerical officer job for a lot less than the current people get. Same with Gardai and most public servant jobs. I know a qualifed primary teacher who wasnt made permmanent and now works only substitution days here and there and claims dole most of year and he said most young grads would do the job for a lot less than the older established permanent teachers get but he is forced to go to uk now where pay is a lot less but at least he gets to work full time at a job he is passionate about.

Jobs like garda always have tens of times more applicants than jobs available so i would say this indicates you could pay a lot less and still get qualified people.
Public sector unions extract above market rates of pay which is a form of extortion on the rest of taxpayers in the economy and robs resources from vital services and payments to the most vulnerable in society. Robbing poor to have above market rates of pay/pensions. In scandinavia public servants get a lot less than here despite high taxes and cost of living which allows them more resources to make society more equal.

Good loser · 15-05-2011 10:11PM

The trouble with PS pay/pensions and comparisons with private sector is that
currently and for some years back (and forward) the employer is effectively broke/bankrupt - borrowing as it does €400 for every €1,000 it spends, or €4,000 per €10,000.
Thus if your pay is €20,000 per annum the Govt borrows €8,000 of that EACH YEAR.
Put another way comparisons with the private sector should be restricted to companies or individuals that are broke/bankrupt.

By the way, viz a viz the recent Bord na Mona ruling, the Labour Court seems to have severed all contact with the real world.

Shame on the unions to have pursued the issue to the Court

Welease · 15-05-2011 10:19PM

Good loser wrote: »

The trouble with PS pay/pensions and comparisons with private sector is that <snip>

The other problem with comparison with the private sector is...

People see the government pay higher than the average industrial wage to people who photocopy stuff, type letters and make the odd phone call.

No offense to the OP.. but there is little to show that the role is not minimum wage level

swordofislam · 16-05-2011 08:26AM

Time for an up or out rule in the civil service?

sarumite · 16-05-2011 09:02AM

BrianD3 wrote: »

Yep. Strange how in Sunday Indo land, 11.9k p.a constitutes "no pension" when talking about a private sector worker. Whereas 17k p.a after 40 years of contributions constitutes a "golden gilt edged pension" when talking about a public servant.

How strange that you forgot to mention a pretty substantial part of the PS pension. :rolleyes:

stimpson · 16-05-2011 10:47AM

From http://irishexaminer.com/ireland/levy-to-take-500-a-year-from-pensions-153725.html

The latter group’s chief executive, Gary Owens, noted that even before the levy the average public-sector pension is between four and five times higher than those for private workers.

sollar · 16-05-2011 10:47AM

swordofislam wrote: »

Time for an up or out rule in the civil service?

What does that mean?

BrianD3 · 16-05-2011 11:16AM

sarumite wrote: »

How strange that you forgot to mention a pretty substantial part of the PS pension. :rolleyes:

Actually I mentioned it in an earlier post.

Anyway the lump sum makes up a minority of the total PS pension. In the case of a CO that lives 15 years after retiring the total pension is ~308k with the lump sum making up ~53k of that.

The private sector worker with "no pension" who lives 15 year on the COAP (having only paid a miniumum of 520 weeks of PRSI contributitions toward his pension compared to the public servant's 2080 weeks of PRSI, superannuation, widows and orphans and pension levy) gets ~180k.

What do you want - the public servant to pay far more in contributions but get the same pension?

I sense immaturity in this discussions about PS pensions. People see mention of lump sums of 50, 60, 70k. Their eyes light up with both excitement and jealousy as they think of it as a windfall and having that sum of money in their hands in one go. Same reason why people are drawn to the lottery, gambling, prize bonds etc., always looking for the "big win"

Well if you want a tax free lump sum when you retire do the following. As a savings guide, look at a public servants weekly pay packet and see how much they're paying in superannuation, widows and orphans and pension levy. Now commit yourself to saving that amount every week for 40 years into a deposit account. No matter what happens, you're not allowed to spend any of that money for 40 years. You'll have a nice lump sum at the end of that 40 years.

16-05-2011 11:19AM

BrianD3 wrote: »

Actually I mentioned it in an earlier post.

Anyway the lump sum makes up a minority of the total PS pension. In the case of a CO that lives 15 years after retiring the total pension is ~308k with the lump sum making up ~53k of that.

17k pa...?

BrianD3 · 16-05-2011 11:34AM

bluewolf wrote: »

17k pa...?

What's the question? Salary and pension of a clerical officer already mentioned numerous times in the thread. It's a few hundred more than 17k p.a if it's based on final salary. It's a few hundred less than 17k p.a. if it's based on average salary over 40 years service.

rumour · 16-05-2011 11:42AM

deise blue wrote: »

the current Government are wary of provoking industrial chaos & as such pay cuts will definitely not be on the table anytime soon.

Surely we'd need some industry in the first place to have industrial chaos?
I don't really think we'd have that much chaos and the government would save a pretty penny if the PS went on strike. Pragmatically I think we'd save far more with a few strikes than raiding 0.6% from the private sector.

16-05-2011 11:48AM

BrianD3 wrote: »

What's the question? Salary and pension of a clerical officer already mentioned numerous times in the thread. It's a few hundred more than 17k p.a if it's based on final salary. It's a few hundred less than 17k p.a. if it's based on average salary over 40 years service.

Yes I missed that, thanks

careca11 · 16-05-2011 11:53AM

splendid101 wrote: »

I'm a low grade civil servant - Clerical Officer.

How much do you think I should get paid?

Listening to the radio and looking at threads here an elsewhere, many people seem to have strong opinions on how much civil servants and public service employees should be paid. So I'm looking for opinions on what my net, take home pay should be.

Feel free to tell me what you get as well.

I work 34 hours and 45 minutes a week (on average [as I'm on flexi time]).

Thanks in advance,

Alan

all depends on how long you have been working ,
I work in similar position in semi state sector , starting was €23k
i'm in the job 7 years , current pay is €29,000 pa
so that should be the sort of pay you should be on

deise blue · 16-05-2011 12:13PM

rumour wrote: »

Surely we'd need some industry in the first place to have industrial chaos?
I don't really think we'd have that much chaos and the government would save a pretty penny if the PS went on strike. Pragmatically I think we'd save far more with a few strikes than raiding 0.6% from the private sector.

In a doomsday situation a far more likely scenario would be a work to rule sector wide which would have a progressively detrimental effect on the level of services provided by the state ( particularly frontline services ).

From the unions & employees point of view this would appear to be the best option from a purely monetary viewpoint.

sarumite · 16-05-2011 12:13PM

BrianD3 wrote: »

Actually I mentioned it in an earlier post.

What do you want - the public servant to pay far more in contributions but get the same pension?

Though you ignored it when making comparisons....a 53k lump sum is probabaly the single biggest payout that person can expect from their whole life, not someting worth ignoring when making comparisons.

I never mentioned anything about what I wanted, so I don't understand the relevance of your question.

Well if you want a tax free lump sum when you retire do the following. As a savings guide, look at a public servants weekly pay packet and see how much they're paying in superannuation, widows and orphans and pension levy. Now commit yourself to saving that amount every week for 40 years into a deposit account. No matter what happens, you're not allowed to spend any of that money for 40 years. You'll have a nice lump sum at the end of that 40 years.

Thats not tax free though....unlike pension contributions the money I would be saving would already have been taxed, would be subject to DIRT (much of it at the higher rate), wouldn't have the same protection from inflation which is currently running at over 3%, so your solution isn't actually the same.

kippy · 16-05-2011 12:37PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

The more I think about it the more I can't think of a reason why we are hiring people on permanent pensionable contracts for photocopying, printing and typing.

As I said dont begrudge them anything personally but the system is seriously broken

Thats a tad unfair in my opinion.
You could demean almost any job in a similiar fashion.
The "Clerical Officer" role varies wildly between different units and areas and in MOST areas its a lot more than photocopying, printing and typing.
There are clerical officers in certain areas whose main role is ensuring wages are paid on time and correctly, the correct documentation is submitted and the correct paperwork is available for audit trail. Some pay the suppliers, ensure everything is above board. Others are responsible for a lot more than what you set out.

That being said - the issue really is this:
Why do we have a need for some many people in the sector at all? Mainly because the work is generally done with so little efficiency (not the fault of the workers). One has to ask why there is so much paper, isnt there an easier way to do this work? Maybe some level of automation? Thats the issue I have really to be honest. Problems are resolved with paper and signitures that mean very little.
A review of all processes and how they are handled needs to take place - cut out the not needed/duplicated ones and streamline the whole lot. Cut out the pointless meetings and focus groups.

Then once you've got that done - use the staff you have and reward them for good performance and ensure you weed out the crap.
Change the pension scheme to opt in/out. Up the hours worked be 3 or so.
Then review the job roles and pay accordingly.

Should the pay of the clerical officer drop to the €9 an hour as some have suggested in the climate of:
Increasing unavoidable costs, less jobs in general, people with mortgages and bills to pay, social welfare that can work out pretty well for certain people then I have no doubt you'll end up with more people on the dole.

I generally prefer to negotiate my salary myself with my employer and negotiate my reviews in a similar fashion - standard increments with no real reviews are a very strange and not so good way to pay staff.

BrianD3 · 16-05-2011 01:26PM

sarumite wrote: »

Though you ignored it when making comparisons

Incorrect, I included it when making comparisons. The relevant words are in bold.

I see the OP says that he has a "brilliant" pension and others are unsurprisingly agreeing with this as it suits the PS fatcat stereotype.

The pension for a civil service CO is far from brilliant. If the highest point of the scale is ~35k that's a pension of 17.5k and a lump sum of 52.5k. After 40 years service paying
1) PRSI
2) superannuation + widows and orphans
3) pension levy.

The CO scale is 12 increments + two long service increments so if he stays at this grade he'll receive no increment for at least 20 years before retiring. As a result, his average salary for his service will be relatively close to the top of the scale.

Now, compare that to a private sector worker on similar wages or lower getting the COAP. How many years of PRSI do they need to get a full COAP. According to this page it's 520 weeks or 10 years.

They pay no superannuation and no pension levy. If any pension is a golden one, it's this. A nice handy 12k per year and people have the nerve to wail about "x number of private sector workers have no pension

sarumite wrote:

Thats not tax free though....unlike pension contributions the money I would be saving would already have been taxed, would be subject to DIRT (much of it at the higher rate), wouldn't have the same protection from inflation which is currently running at over 3%, so your solution isn't actually the same.

Don't save then :rolleyes:

It's tax free when you "draw" it. A fat payment into your hand which should satisfy people's craving for a "big payout". That's if people have the discipline to put a small amount aside every week for 40 years and leave it untouched for 40 years rather than splurging on crap. As for inflation, while it may be running at 3% net interest rates after DIRT can still match or beat this.

40 quid per week put aside every week for 40 years = 83k not taking account of either inflation or interest obviously. Add that to the golden, index linked COAP that is untaxed (unlike PS pensions over 18K) and only needs 520 weeks of PRSI contributions to receive - and things aren't looking so bad for the poor downtrodden private sector worker.

sarumite · 16-05-2011 02:29PM

BrianD3 wrote: »

Incorrect, I included it when making comparisons. The relevant words are in bold.

I responded to this post where you didn't include the lump sum

BrianD3 wrote: »

Yep. Strange how in Sunday Indo land, 11.9k p.a constitutes "no pension" when talking about a private sector worker. Whereas 17k p.a after 40 years of contributions constitutes a "golden gilt edged pension" when talking about a public servant.

Don't save then :rolleyes:

non-sequitur

Nijmegen · 16-05-2011 03:53PM

swordofislam wrote: »

Time for an up or out rule in the civil service?

They introduced just such a rule in the Defence Forces in the big shakeup of the '90's. Difference between the defence forces and the rest of the public service?

No union, no striking. A representative organisation alright, but one that had no say.

kippy · 16-05-2011 04:05PM

Nijmegen wrote: »

They introduced just such a rule in the Defence Forces in the big shakeup of the '90's. Difference between the defence forces and the rest of the public service?

No union, no striking. A representative organisation alright, but one that had no say.

Gonna be bluntly honest here and tell you what I think.
Unions - yep they have become a monster. They aren't what they were initially set up to be. Unions tend to protect the most idiotic lazy and useless people. As there is NO WAY these people would manage to hold down a job for any length of time without the backing of the "union" even if they themselves arent in the union. These people tend to be the most vocal and most militant as well - often spending more time and efford avoiding work, ducking and diving, than actually doing the work. Unions at times really held up any reforms (for the better) that could have happened because members ask for more money for using a "new" usually more efficient system or process.
The tamer people int he union are in it because of fear mostly and some low level passive aggressiveness from certain members.

HOWEVER - we it also not for certain unions and union actions god only knows how the public service would be. Bad enough as it is now - if the people who actually make the decisions were allowed carte blanche with decisions we'd be in a right jock - because the majority of these people havent a notion how to plan, take a decision or think outside the box.
Yep - unions are bad in most ways but until we improve the calibre of decision makers (who have little or no real experience outside the public service roles) they are required to keep a handle on it. There are members of unions who do actually care about their jobs and their role in the public service - they are just not vocal enough.

Some the decisions made in the public service and the management of budgets still absolutely dumbfound me.

Nijmegen · 16-05-2011 04:06PM

kippy wrote: »

Gonna be bluntly honest here and tell you what I think.
Unions - yep they have become a monster. They aren't what they were initially set up to be. Unions tend to protect the most idiotic lazy and useless people. As there is NO WAY these people would manage to hold down a job for any length of time without the backing of the "union" even if they themselves arent in the union. These people tend to be the most vocal and most militant as well - often spending more time and efford avoiding work, ducking and diving, than actually doing the work. Unions at times really held up any reforms (for the better) that could have happened because members ask for more money for using a "new" usually more efficient system or process.
The tamer people int he union are in it because of fear mostly and some low level passive aggressiveness from certain members.

HOWEVER - we it also not for certain unions and union actions god only knows how the public service would be. Bad enough as it is now - if the people who actually make the decisions were allowed carte blanche with decisions we'd be in a right jock - because the majority of these people havent a notion how to plan, take a decision or think outside the box.
Yep - unions are bad in most ways but until we improve the calibre of decision makers (who have little or no real experience outside the public service roles) they are required to keep a handle on it. There are members of unions who do actually care about their jobs and their role in the public service - they are just not vocal enough.

Some the decisions made in the public service and the management of budgets still absolutely dumbfound me.

I tend to agree. Were I to fill a boat to be taken out and sunk in the Atlantic, PS managers would make up more of the cabin space than union leaders.

rumour · 16-05-2011 05:03PM

deise blue wrote: »

In a doomsday situation a far more likely scenario would be a work to rule sector wide which would have a progressively detrimental effect on the level of services provided by the state ( particularly frontline services ).

From the unions & employees point of view this would appear to be the best option from a purely monetary viewpoint.

Yes I guess even the beardies have figured out nobody would care if they striked, but work to rule is not that bad either. Presumably firing is then an option when invariably they won't be able to deliver on the rules.

Head The Wall · 16-05-2011 05:48PM

The govt did threaten to start docking wages of staff during the last work to rule so hopefully they will do this if the need arises

splendid101 · 16-05-2011 07:41PM

Basic - €485.60
USC - € 20.89
Tax - € 27.59
PRSI - € 14.34
Pension - S & C - € 7.28
Pension - Personal - € 7.28
Pension - Lump Sum - € 0.88
Pension related deduction - € 14.90
CPSU Sub (Union) - € 4.86
__________
Net Pay - €387.58

Total Deductions - € 98.02

So I get about €14 per hour, gross.
€25,251.20 per year, gross.

Thanks for all the contributions so far. It's been an interesting thread. Special thanks to all those saying I should be getting €32,000, €27,000, €50,000 etc., etc. Can't say I agree with ye but it would be nice.

I'm glad the people suggesting minimum wage have no say in the matter. One can't help but wonder what amazing jobs ye're doing.

I'd be genuinely interested in other people letting me know how much more than them I get paid or if they're paid more than me, how much. I don't expect others to throw up their wages if they're not comfortable with that, it's perfectly understandable. But a guideline would be of interest.

Apologies to people who've addressed me without a reply. Don't feel like writing a long, long post at the moment. I may come back to people if I get the chance or feel argumentative.

Thanks again,

Alan

p.s. can see this thread pushing twenty pages.

DM addict · 16-05-2011 07:48PM

appreciate the level of detail there!

Not got so much info to hand myself, but my gross p.a. is 18,500.

How much do you think I should get paid?

Comments